If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

It's not like AT-winning teams are out there doing community roams or classes on how to fly or how to win tournaments... exactly the opposite, in fact. The top tier teams literally go out of their way not to share their secrets, their comps, and their theories. The first comment on occasional news site post, blog post, or Reddit post on tournament winners is usually "You got a bunch of stuff wrong. You know nothing, Jon Snow." with no explanation of what was wrong.

There are quite a few people from successful AT teams who run public roams or make instructional videos, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. What specifically do you think the team members should be doing?

To the point of "he has done so much good for the community before this". What good you have done in the past doesn't justify doing wrong. It doesn't make it ok. It isn't balancing scale.

This is a really good point, which I'd take a step farther. What is this good the teams that have won the AT have done for the community?

It's not like AT-winning teams are out there doing community roams or classes on how to fly or how to win tournaments... exactly the opposite, in fact. The top tier teams literally go out of their way not to share their secrets, their comps, and their theories. The first comment on occasional news site post, blog post, or Reddit post on tournament winners is usually "You got a bunch of stuff wrong. You know nothing, Jon Snow." with no explanation of what was wrong.

So aside from a weekend or two's entertainment for 3% of the community maybe twice a year plus the very occasional publicly amusing AT ship loss-mail, plus the very very occasional "Here's a crumb, the comms from one of our tournament matches." or "Here's the story of our perspective of why we're so awesome." (the latter carefully stripped of any information another AT team might find useful) the community at large doesn't benefit from AT winning teams at all.

Add that to the rest of your post (which was quite good) and the super-smug "We deserve to win because we're way smarter than you, and you're dumb not to use these same tactics." and you have a recipe for the "get rekt" backlash.

It's weird skimming this thread and so many people really are unfamiliar how teams collaborate in esports.

Even though it's an individual game, South Korea started it all by establishing team houses where players can practice against each other for Starcraft. Even if 2 players were playing in the same tournament one of them will usually have lesser mechanical skill.

With actual team games like Counterstrike and Dota Korea and China still have multiple squads under the same team name practicing and competing with each other. In a game like Dota (which the Alliance Tournament is closest to) having two teams work very closely together while avoiding practice with other teams has drawbacks.

For example, you can develop a very limited meta between each other that doesn't compete with the meta of everyone else playing against each other. If all the other 14 teams had actually ran mini tournaments against each other while Camel and Warlords stayed within their own bubble they would've actually fallen behind everyone else.

But since everyone distrusts each other so much their method was logically the superior one because they had a ton more practice than all the other teams.

@kadesh - You were right to form a partnership but it does have more limitations than you realize. Secondly you and your cohorts got greedy. You should've both played to the best of your abilities instead of fixing a match. Regardless of the fact you needed to practice with each other considering the state of competitive play in Eve CCP was right to punish you just like any team would be punished for lacking sportsmanship and causing unfair monetary loss for sports fans betting on the outcomes.

It's weird skimming this thread and so many people really are unfamiliar how teams collaborate in esports.

Even though it's an individual game, South Korea started it all by establishing team houses where players can practice against each other for Starcraft. Even if 2 players were playing in the same tournament one of them will usually have lesser mechanical skill.

With actual team games like Counterstrike and Dota Korea and China still have multiple squads under the same team name practicing and competing with each other. In a game like Dota (which the Alliance Tournament is closest to) having two teams work very closely together while avoiding practice with other teams has drawbacks.

For example, you can develop a very limited meta between each other that doesn't compete with the meta of everyone else playing against each other. If all the other 14 teams had actually ran mini tournaments against each other while Camel and Warlords stayed within their own bubble they would've actually fallen behind everyone else.

But since everyone distrusts each other so much their method was logically the superior one because they had a ton more practice than all the other teams.

@kadesh - You were right to form a partnership but it does have more limitations than you realize. Secondly you and your cohorts got greedy. You should've both played to the best of your abilities instead of fixing a match. Regardless of the fact you needed to practice with each other considering the state of competitive play in Eve CCP was right to punish you just like any team would be punished for lacking sportsmanship and causing unfair monetary loss for sports fans betting on the outcomes.

The difference between that and eve is spying, if you can spy you dont "miss" the meta, pick up the ideas of everyone else and still show nothing of your setups.

Originally Posted by QuackBot

I see you have read nietzsche's little known work "beyond boobs and butts".

To the point of "he has done so much good for the community before this". What good you have done in the past doesn't justify doing wrong. It doesn't make it ok. It isn't balancing scale.

This is a really good point, which I'd take a step farther. What is this good the teams that have won the AT have done for the community?

It's not like AT-winning teams are out there doing community roams or classes on how to fly or how to win tournaments... exactly the opposite, in fact. The top tier teams literally go out of their way not to share their secrets, their comps, and their theories. The first comment on occasional news site post, blog post, or Reddit post on tournament winners is usually "You got a bunch of stuff wrong. You know nothing, Jon Snow." with no explanation of what was wrong.

So aside from a weekend or two's entertainment for 3% of the community maybe twice a year plus the very occasional publicly amusing AT ship loss-mail, plus the very very occasional "Here's a crumb, the comms from one of our tournament matches." or "Here's the story of our perspective of why we're so awesome." (the latter carefully stripped of any information another AT team might find useful) the community at large doesn't benefit from AT winning teams at all.

Add that to the rest of your post (which was quite good) and the super-smug "We deserve to win because we're way smarter than you, and you're dumb not to use these same tactics." and you have a recipe for the "get rekt" backlash.

And?

No one gives a shit that the at doesnt benefit the community, even if there were 0 viewers it would be a good event. Not everything is rated by the amount of views it gets.

Are you really that fucking stupid? This is an event for the community to watch if there were no viewers there would not have been AT II let alone AT 12 or whatever we are on

To the point of "he has done so much good for the community before this". What good you have done in the past doesn't justify doing wrong. It doesn't make it ok. It isn't balancing scale.

This is a really good point, which I'd take a step farther. What is this good the teams that have won the AT have done for the community?

It's not like AT-winning teams are out there doing community roams or classes on how to fly or how to win tournaments... exactly the opposite, in fact. The top tier teams literally go out of their way not to share their secrets, their comps, and their theories. The first comment on occasional news site post, blog post, or Reddit post on tournament winners is usually "You got a bunch of stuff wrong. You know nothing, Jon Snow." with no explanation of what was wrong.

So aside from a weekend or two's entertainment for 3% of the community maybe twice a year plus the very occasional publicly amusing AT ship loss-mail, plus the very very occasional "Here's a crumb, the comms from one of our tournament matches." or "Here's the story of our perspective of why we're so awesome." (the latter carefully stripped of any information another AT team might find useful) the community at large doesn't benefit from AT winning teams at all.

Add that to the rest of your post (which was quite good) and the super-smug "We deserve to win because we're way smarter than you, and you're dumb not to use these same tactics." and you have a recipe for the "get rekt" backlash.

And?

No one gives a shit that the at doesnt benefit the community, even if there were 0 viewers it would be a good event. Not everything is rated by the amount of views it gets.

Are you really that fucking stupid? This is an event for the community to watch if there were no viewers there would not have been AT II let alone AT 12 or whatever we are on

To the point of "he has done so much good for the community before this". What good you have done in the past doesn't justify doing wrong. It doesn't make it ok. It isn't balancing scale.

This is a really good point, which I'd take a step farther. What is this good the teams that have won the AT have done for the community?

It's not like AT-winning teams are out there doing community roams or classes on how to fly or how to win tournaments... exactly the opposite, in fact. The top tier teams literally go out of their way not to share their secrets, their comps, and their theories. The first comment on occasional news site post, blog post, or Reddit post on tournament winners is usually "You got a bunch of stuff wrong. You know nothing, Jon Snow." with no explanation of what was wrong.

So aside from a weekend or two's entertainment for 3% of the community maybe twice a year plus the very occasional publicly amusing AT ship loss-mail, plus the very very occasional "Here's a crumb, the comms from one of our tournament matches." or "Here's the story of our perspective of why we're so awesome." (the latter carefully stripped of any information another AT team might find useful) the community at large doesn't benefit from AT winning teams at all.

Add that to the rest of your post (which was quite good) and the super-smug "We deserve to win because we're way smarter than you, and you're dumb not to use these same tactics." and you have a recipe for the "get rekt" backlash.

And?

No one gives a shit that the at doesnt benefit the community, even if there were 0 viewers it would be a good event. Not everything is rated by the amount of views it gets.

Are you really that fucking stupid? This is an event for the community to watch if there were no viewers there would not have been AT II let alone AT 12 or whatever we are on

CCP has stated (i think) that they dont see it as advertisement so what is their net gain? It was/is a tournament for alliances to compete on a even level for the first time ever, not a actual viewers sport.

That this gets thousand of viewers on twitch is a bonus, not the goal. This tournament was probably the best one there ever was in terms of how big the skill level shown was all around. The meta was interesting, the fights (bar the criple ones) were interesting. It was all around a good event. Assuming it was a bad one due to something as retarded as twitch view count is stupid.

Originally Posted by QuackBot

I see you have read nietzsche's little known work "beyond boobs and butts".

To the point of "he has done so much good for the community before this". What good you have done in the past doesn't justify doing wrong. It doesn't make it ok. It isn't balancing scale.

This is a really good point, which I'd take a step farther. What is this good the teams that have won the AT have done for the community?

It's not like AT-winning teams are out there doing community roams or classes on how to fly or how to win tournaments... exactly the opposite, in fact. The top tier teams literally go out of their way not to share their secrets, their comps, and their theories. The first comment on occasional news site post, blog post, or Reddit post on tournament winners is usually "You got a bunch of stuff wrong. You know nothing, Jon Snow." with no explanation of what was wrong.

So aside from a weekend or two's entertainment for 3% of the community maybe twice a year plus the very occasional publicly amusing AT ship loss-mail, plus the very very occasional "Here's a crumb, the comms from one of our tournament matches." or "Here's the story of our perspective of why we're so awesome." (the latter carefully stripped of any information another AT team might find useful) the community at large doesn't benefit from AT winning teams at all.

Add that to the rest of your post (which was quite good) and the super-smug "We deserve to win because we're way smarter than you, and you're dumb not to use these same tactics." and you have a recipe for the "get rekt" backlash.

And?

No one gives a shit that the at doesnt benefit the community, even if there were 0 viewers it would be a good event. Not everything is rated by the amount of views it gets.

Are you really that fucking stupid? This is an event for the community to watch if there were no viewers there would not have been AT II let alone AT 12 or whatever we are on

It's Wolf

Do you really need to ask that question?

I mean, he was the only redrep poster here for a long long time

Pot, Kettle. Meet charcoal. :P

Also wolf is right, and the amount of viewers has dick all to do with how good an event is. SCL was a good event, NT collides was and is a good event, and they probably peak at a hundred or two hundred viewers. Regardless they were well run events that where loads of fun for those involved and watching.

Also wolf is right, and the amount of viewers has dick all to do with how good an event is. SCL was a good event, NT collides was and is a good event, and they probably peak at a hundred or two hundred viewers. Regardless they were well run events that where loads of fun for those involved and watching.